Hi there. In the GL24, she needs to give grounds for why she thinks the decision is wrong. The best thing to do, is to say why they feel she meets the descriptors thus qualifies for ESA. She can attach extra sheets if needed. My concern here though is that her own GP feels she can work part time. If the GP is submitting on the MED3's that she is able to work part time then that doesn't do much to support her case that she is unfit for work. (For clarity, ESA is not declined on the basis that someone is fit for full time work; it is declined on the basis that someone is fit for work, full stop). In order to be sucessful, she needs to be able to show that she meets the eligibility criteria for ESA, that is, that she meets the descriptors set in the legislation. The decriptors can be found in the schedules 1 & 2 here. Have a look through the descriptors and see what ones she meets. On the GL24, write down which descriptors she meets, and how. She needs to get at least 15 points to qualify for ESA. If it is more than a month from the date on the decision letter (not the date of the assessment), she will also need to explain her reasons for not appealing within the one month time limit; if she doesn't do this, they will write to her to ask her to explain her reasons. If it is more than a month, DWP will consider whether a late appeal can be accepted based on the reasons submitted. If they decide to accept it, they will begin the process of reconsideration. If they decide not to accept a late appeal, they have to submit it to the tribunal service and they will decide whether or not to accept the appeal. If you need anything else, just ask.

They do, yes but very rarely for these cases. It is usually reserved for major fraud or organised fraud. folle, I've seen cases for a lot higher than the amount you mention. Repayment plus a financial penalty was the outcome. You have to also remember that like Jadeybags said, you are entitled to the money as you are not commiting fraud. Defintately go and see CAB. I think you will benefit from face to face contact with a representative.

It's impossible to put a time frame on it, unfortunately. It depends what information they have and what information they have yet to accquire. Interviews are another rarity for tax credit. These IUC's and prosecutions you hear about are usually brought by DWP for benefits or the local authority for housing benefit/council tax benefit fraud. Tax credits are a whole different ball game - they are not so quick to prosecute and rarely do. HMRC generally have far bigger fish to fry and their prosecutions are usually aimed toward organised criminals. They will usually respond by letter once they have completed their enquiry.

folle, This forum is purely voluntary. As such people come on as and when they can. You may get more responses to your posts tonight or you may not. Posting at 5 minute intervals is not going to get further input any quicker. What we can advise on is limited to the information that you give to us and there is not a lot more that we can tell you that we haven't already. There are a lot of people who have been through this and come out the other side. Take some time to look around the forum at their stories, which may provide further reassurance. The CAB have an advisors priority line for tax credit and may be able to ring them on your behalf with you present.

Hi folle. It's easier said than done, I know but you need to calm down - you will drive yourself to distraction worrying what may or may not happen. Tax credit very rarely prosecute. Very rarely. To reassure you about that, I've helped people with hundreds of tax credit cases where an allegation of fraud has been made. Of those hundreds, I've seen only one prosecution. In most cases the investigation is a civil one, where the aim is solely to recoup the money lost - sometimes with an added financial penalty. Requesting a years worth of bank statements is perfectly normal; this happens in almost all compliance enquiries when they are investigating a potential undeclared partner. They also usually ask for a host of other documents such as utility bills, mortgage docs, wage slips, council tax bills. The issue that I forsee is one of proof, as a previous poster said. All the paperwork available appears to point to him having a partnership with you. Even in cases where it's been decided fraud has occured, prosecution is rare with tax credit. However, if you haven't already spoken to your husband, I would suggest that you do if he's approachable. He may have some documents which disproves their allegations and which could help you. Also, if you are legally seperated then the paperwork in relation to that would help. As a consumer forum, we'll help where we are able to with your tx credit issues. Also because we are a consumer forum, we are unable to assist you with your the feelings you are experieincing at the moment. I know that you have gone to your GP and have obtained medication but if you are feeling in despair, I would urge you to contact the Samaritans. You can link to them here: Talk to Someone

Hi Maudsley. If you wish to contact members of CAG to take a matter off-site, you will need to seek permission from admin to do so, as the forum rules do not normally allow for this. To contact admin, please email admin@consumeractiongroup.co.uk. Please note that there should be no spaces in that email address. regards Erika.

Hi Lucy. I've moved your post to our employment forums as the question is related to employability rather than eligibility for benefit. Having a conviction on record does not necessarily mean that you would not be considered, unless that conviction suggested that you would be inappropriate for the role. It may prevent you from working in finance but not necesserily from teaching. In regard to the course, you will need to check with the establishment which provides the course whether having a conviction for benefit fraud would preclude you from the course.

Threads merged. Please do not start multiple threads for the same issue.

Hi Ajtw. You can ask to pay over a longer period of time but be aware that they can charge interest if they allow you more than 30 days to pay.

Wonderful news! Very pleased for you

Ah, I see. They do have a right to know how much money she has if they are paying the care fees, in order to assess her ongoing entitlement. From what you've said, it's not your account - it's hers but you administer it on her behalf and in addition, have your finances paid in there, have I got that right?

latics321, I have removed your attachments because personal details were visible. Please hide the personal details before reposting - this is for your own protection as this is a public forum and can be viewed by anyone.

Hello again. Unfortunately, fraud investigations can take an extremely long time to be completed however it is unusual for an investigation to still be ongoing this long after an IUC. Is it perhaps possible that the investigation was closed and this is a new invesitgation/re-opening of the old one? I ask because of this statement: If you have been living with him again, this may have prompted a fresh report.

There has to be a reason. Organisations can't just ask to see people's accounts willy nilly. What is their involvement with her?

On what grounds to they want/need to see the money that has been going into the account?

[quote=Daisy Moo;3695620 They said I should apply for a crisis loan, this is something I have never heard of and as I don't go out would have to wait for papers to be sent to me, fill them in and send them back. I would probably have my money by then. Daisy xxx You don't need to complete a postal application for a crisis loan. You phone up and apply over the phone. You will get a decision the same day. If you ar sucessful, they can issue a same day payment to your account if you are unable to go to the Jobcentre to collect the payment. The number is 0800 032 7952 and is free from most providers - including mobiles.

I recently submitted a SAR to an organisation who cover a very wide ranging consumer base. With the SAR, I provided a cheque for £10.00 - this is the limit for the information I require, according to the Data Protection Act. The organisation responded. In their response, they told me that payment of £10.00 was required and they would not begin processing the SAR until such a time as they received it. They did not return the cheque and made no mention of the fact that I had even sent it. The only reference to the word 'cheque' is that they would accept payment by credit/debit card or postal order, but would not accept cheques. They have my cheque, can cash it at anytime (may already have deposited it for all I know). Ok, I could put a stop on it but is that the point? Nah, not really. I don't want to give them my card details because give them once and it can end in the 'authorisation' of other payments. And I don't want to send a postal order because the post office charge 12.50% of the face value of the PO. Ok, it's £1.25 but again, not the point. There is also the added issue that you cannot check if it's been cashed (unless reporting it lost or stolen). But I did worry that I hadn't a leg to stand on because if a shop can refuse a cheque for payment of goods, surely a large organisation can do the same for a SAR, yes? Well, 'no' actually, not exactly. They can refuse it but as it happens, this does not give them the right to refuse to process your SAR... I contacted the good old ICO to ask for advice, as I've never come across this before with a SAR. And guess what they told me? That from the moment the organisation received my cheque, they were obligated to comply with the SAR. Whether they choose to accept my method of payment doesn't come into it, the fact that I've made it does. I've been directed to the information in the attached document and thought it may come in useful to others who find themselves being refused a SAR on the basis of the payment method. ICO method of payment.pdf

Yes, you need 10 posts to post an email address. People are also allowed to post links after 10 posts but the ability to post a link does not mean that all links are allowed to be posted. There are rules about what can and cannot be posted, and for what purposes. For example, if a member wished to complain to a chief executive about a consumer issue, it's permisible for someone to post the email address of that chief executive if the email is in the public domain anyway. It's not permissible to post personal email addresses for the purpose of giving and receiving advice off forum. This rule is in place to protect our members from claims touts, and also to ensure that any advice given is open to debate, qualification, and where necessary, correction. This information is contained within the forum rules which you would have (should have) read before posting. If you haven't read the forum rules, please click here to view them. Another moderator politely requested in post 37 that email addresses not be posted, however this was not heeded and an email address was posted and removed 3 times.

Income Based JSA is assessed on the income and capital of the household - this includes a partner you live with. If your partner earns above the threshold for claiming JSA, you will not be entitled to it.

Write to them requesting a copy - they can charge you £10 for this though. Some departments waive the fee - if they do they will return it to you. If you made the claim to JSA in december, the tax years which are relevant are 08/09 and 09/10. If you made the claim in January, the relevant years are 09/10 and 10/11. Amend the below letter as necessary. I don't have the address to send this to for NI but I have the address for tax credit. If you phone the NI helpline and tell them you want to submit a SAR for your contribution record, they'll give you the address. The number is 0845 302 1479. They have 40 days to comply though and be aware that you only have 1 month to appeal a decision on JSA entitlement. It may be far quicker to contact JSA and ask them to explain their decision. They will probably be happy to explain this over the phone but if you want it in writing, you will need to request a 'Statement of Reasons'. As the above poster said, you may be eligible for income based JSA.

This is correct for a 1997 IB claim. (for claims made after 6/4/01, pensions with an income in excess of £85 p/w do affect IB - for anyone who is wondering why their pension may have been taken into account). It only relates to IB but not to other benefits which are means tested. The forms should ask whether there are pensions but they will also ask about other income. Any other type of income should always be declared unless the form specifically states not to include it. He would have to say what it was and how much it was. They check the statements for capital and other income. Thats why they ask for them as evidence of your claim as well as asking on the form. But in spite of this, the solicitor is actually correct - he's probably thinking about CH/69/2003 or similar (case law). This is good because it means he has a solicitor that actually knows what he's talking about (a lot don't where benefits are concerned, unless they have wide ranging experience in welfare law). If it were the case however that he declared the pension on the forms and produced the bank statements then they do have a responsibility - that is what my post is based upon. But from your second post, it appears that he may not have declared the pension on the claim form which is a whole new issue because that brings the case under 'failure to disclose'. This is the crucial part. If he didn't declare it on the initial application and did not thereafter declare it, then I'm afraid that it does bring the case into the territory of a potential prosecution. What other departments know and don't know is neither here nor there I'm afraid. The claimant has a duty to inform each body individually from whom he claims benefits, of his income. The issue with other agencies being aware is that it can backfire. Whilst someone may try to argue that it was declared to DWP or HMRC and it not being declared to the council is not fraud but merely a mistake, the council will argue that declaring it to two agencies shows that the claimant was aware of the requirements to disclose but chose not to disclose to the council in an attempt to obtain funds to which they were not entitled. It's a double edged sword. The crux of this is the original claim form and subsequent review forms and seeing what was declared on there. I'm sorry I can't be more positive or specific. Once the IUC has occured and he has a better idea of what they have, then I may be in a position to advise further - but so will the solicitor, and if he knows of cases such as CH/69/2003, then he knows what he is doing.

My guess is that part time work will most probably be a factor in your not having paid sufficient NI contributions to qualify for JSA©. The only way to know for certain is to obtain a copy of your contributions record from HMRC.

This thread has been edited. Please do not post email addresses on site.;please refer to the forum rules. Thank you

Sorry about the wait, weeman07. Housing benefit and council tax benefit are not covered by the Supreme Court Decision on the recoverability of official error overpayments. For the purposes of housing benefit, an overpayment is recoverable even where it was official error, if the claimant knew, or could reasonably be expected to know that he was being overpaid. They would not seek to take the whole £25K at once where this is inaffordable. They will allow it to be repaid by installments or, if he continues to receive benefit, by reducing his ongoing payments, so don't worry too much about that just now. Let's consider some facts. Ok. So. Your dad was a civil servant. I'm assuming (hoping) that his role in the service was not involved with the administration of benefits. If it was, it could potentially pose an issue over whether he could reasonably be expected to know about being overpaid. You say that your dad put his pension details on his renewal forms (hopefully he did on his application form too) and provided bank statements which showed payment of a pension. This is good. He provided the information to them, he didn't omit it. He can therefore argue that a reasonable person would assume (and in good faith) that the council would act upon the information provided to them and calculate his benefit accordingly; therefore there cannot be a reasonable expectation that he could have known he was being overpaid (thus it is not recoverable). This can also be used re fraud. Fraud in Social Security terms is (broadly speaking) misrepresentation of a material fact or failure to disclose. He provided the information to them, freely - so again, he can argue that in providing the information he has not failed to disclose and has not misrepresented his claim. The only issue that I can forsee would be if he had ticked 'no' on a box which asks about pensions and/or other income on the forms. Or, perhaps if the award notice has a heading for 'disregarded income' and the pension is not included there. From what you have said, it appears that he did not 'fail to inform' but rather the council failed to take the pension into account. Will the solicitor be accompanying him to the IUC? If so, the solicitor will be able to get 'disclosure' just prior to the interview to see what information they plan to put forward. If not, do you need some information about IUC's?

Hi rose48. The 6 month rule applies to payment of ESA, not the claim in itself. If someone claims again within 6 months of the decision with the same condition, payment may not be made until after an assessment. Payment would only be made if the person presented with a new condition or there has been a significant deterioration in the original condition. As it is more than 6 months since the decision, you can apply again with the same condition and will be paid. The jobcentre appear to have misunderstood the law. If this misinformation has prevented you from claiming, you should complain and seek redress, particularly if that misinformation has created financial hardship.